Jurors explain why they sided with Johnny Depp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The misogyny of the coverage (and observers) disgusted me. Is she an angel? Obviously not. Did she deserve the nasty portrayal she received? I also don’t think so.

Plus one

And are you applying the same reasoning to him? He’s not an angel, and did he deserve the nasty portrayal in her media posts? I guess that’s all okay because he’s a man and couldn’t certainly experience DV or abuse directed at him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You Depp defenders should listen to the episode of On The Media called “How The Media Failed Amber Heard.” You might change your mind about things like the poop in the bed (which was most likely from their dog) and other manipulations.

I don't base my opinions on media coverage. I watched the trial with an open mind and based my opinions on the trial alone--both Amber, Johnny and the witnesses.

That's how I'd want it if I was on trial. Base your decisions on the evidence and testimony.

DP. Except you didn't, if you watched it you would know that the make up that got so much coverage, was just that an example of make up used to cover bruises, not that exact make up. Plus how do you explain the need for AH to have bruises, but not for JD? His finger was explained and it was not a result of a thrown bottle, but you missed that part, no?
AH admitted to her wrong doings, but JD took no responsibility. Not one sentence of, I could do better when it comes to this or this, we have witness saying JD kicked her, and that just flew past you. You know whose fragile ego can't ever admit even the tiniest things that they did wrong? Narcissist, abusive narcissist.
You watched bunch of Youtube misogynist coverage that omitted most of the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You Depp defenders should listen to the episode of On The Media called “How The Media Failed Amber Heard.” You might change your mind about things like the poop in the bed (which was most likely from their dog) and other manipulations.

I don't base my opinions on media coverage. I watched the trial with an open mind and based my opinions on the trial alone--both Amber, Johnny and the witnesses.

That's how I'd want it if I was on trial. Base your decisions on the evidence and testimony.

DP. Except you didn't, if you watched it you would know that the make up that got so much coverage, was just that an example of make up used to cover bruises, not that exact make up. Plus how do you explain the need for AH to have bruises, but not for JD? His finger was explained and it was not a result of a thrown bottle, but you missed that part, no?
AH admitted to her wrong doings, but JD took no responsibility. Not one sentence of, I could do better when it comes to this or this, we have witness saying JD kicked her, and that just flew past you. You know whose fragile ego can't ever admit even the tiniest things that they did wrong? Narcissist, abusive narcissist.
You watched bunch of Youtube misogynist coverage that omitted most of the facts.

This is so full of baloney!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You Depp defenders should listen to the episode of On The Media called “How The Media Failed Amber Heard.” You might change your mind about things like the poop in the bed (which was most likely from their dog) and other manipulations.

I don't base my opinions on media coverage. I watched the trial with an open mind and based my opinions on the trial alone--both Amber, Johnny and the witnesses.

That's how I'd want it if I was on trial. Base your decisions on the evidence and testimony.

DP. Except you didn't, if you watched it you would know that the make up that got so much coverage, was just that an example of make up used to cover bruises, not that exact make up. Plus how do you explain the need for AH to have bruises, but not for JD? His finger was explained and it was not a result of a thrown bottle, but you missed that part, no?
AH admitted to her wrong doings, but JD took no responsibility. Not one sentence of, I could do better when it comes to this or this, we have witness saying JD kicked her, and that just flew past you. You know whose fragile ego can't ever admit even the tiniest things that they did wrong? Narcissist, abusive narcissist.
You watched bunch of Youtube misogynist coverage that omitted most of the facts.

DP, i watched the trial and both sides brought in their own expert witness with different interpretations on the severed finger. You are the one that chose to only listen to the testimony that worked for you. I listened to both testimony and take both with a grain of salt because at the end of the day these experts were paid to say whatever their clients wanted. So I just chose to ignore that whole episode. However, I just know that there is no way any kind of make up could have covered the bruises and swelling that would have resulted from the violence that Amber described. No amount of make up would allow her to appear with a perfect face a day after being punched multiple times by a man who wears bulky rings.

And when did she ever admit any wrongdoings? She had an explanation for everything single thing. She lied about donating her divorce settlement, but gave an excuse of using pledge and donate synonymously. She tipped TMZ and sold them the video of JD banging some cabinets, but insisted that she didn't leak the video and the TMZ employee was lying and seeking his 15 minutes through her lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her. Interesting that Tasya would not testify, but the airport employee, Beverly did. Amber's stories about Johnny threatening other women (flight attendant and woman at Hicksville) were never proven, no witnesses. The Hicksville manager, Morgan testified Amber was lying.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her! Amber was using drugs and alcohol equally and is violent. She refused to turn over her devices so we don't know what her texts say!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.

The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.

You still don’t understand. There’s no point in continuing to try to explain it to you because you don’t even want to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.


The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.

You still don’t understand. There’s no point in continuing to try to explain it to you because you don’t even want to understand.

And you still refuse to see that she was sending the message that the WaPo headline was accurate when she testified about the violence she allegedly endured. But you're right. There is no point in continuing. You're stuck in your ways and I'm stuck in mine.

[Anonymous]

The premise of this thread is somewhat faulty. They found liability on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You Depp defenders should listen to the episode of On The Media called “How The Media Failed Amber Heard.” You might change your mind about things like the poop in the bed (which was most likely from their dog) and other manipulations.

I don't base my opinions on media coverage. I watched the trial with an open mind and based my opinions on the trial alone--both Amber, Johnny and the witnesses.

That's how I'd want it if I was on trial. Base your decisions on the evidence and testimony.

DP. Except you didn't, if you watched it you would know that the make up that got so much coverage, was just that an example of make up used to cover bruises, not that exact make up. Plus how do you explain the need for AH to have bruises, but not for JD? His finger was explained and it was not a result of a thrown bottle, but you missed that part, no?
AH admitted to her wrong doings, but JD took no responsibility. Not one sentence of, I could do better when it comes to this or this, we have witness saying JD kicked her, and that just flew past you. You know whose fragile ego can't ever admit even the tiniest things that they did wrong? Narcissist, abusive narcissist.
You watched bunch of Youtube misogynist coverage that omitted most of the facts.

This is so full of baloney!

Your intellect astounds the masses! No wonder you are JD stan. I am sure you would find an excuse for him even if he abused YOU!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument about the prior DV charge against Heard is really ridiculous. That charge was dropped and appeared to be a misunderstanding, potentially based on the fact that both parties involved were women and cops do not have a great track record in handling DV cases with regards to same-sex relationships.

The "victim" in that prior charge has said many times that was a misunderstanding and that Heard did not hurt her.

It's interesting how the people screaming about "watch the trial!" and "look at the facts!" regularly get facts wrong, exaggerating character evidence against Heard, but ignore all the evidence against Depp. And by the way, I think it's true Heard engaged in abusive behavior, that this relationship was toxic, and that there are no real winners here. But it's also very obvious that Depp had drug and alcohol problems, was violent and rage-prone, and was abusive towards Heard. He says so in his own text messages -- he talks about his behavior with shame and knows what he did was wrong. He abused her!

People get this idea in their head of what an abuse victim is supposed to look like and if they have sympathies towards the abuser (which many do for Depp, he's a celebrity, a talented actor we've watched in movies for decades -- most people probably have some sympathy for him), they will go to great lengths to look for ways that the accuser must be lying or exaggerating, must of brought this on herself, etc. But abuse is abuse. I've had people act provocatively towards me, try to engage me in fights, etc. I've never abused any of them. See? It's not that hard.

Depp abused Heard. Her op-ed was not a lie. WaPo put an inaccurate headline on it and she retweeted the headline, which is the thinnest possible premise for a case like this.


The verdict is unjust. And I don't say that as a fan or defender of Heard (who is deeply flawed) but as someone who cares about abuse survivors in general. This case is a travesty.

According to Amber, that WaPo title was not inaccurate. She agreed with that title. During the trial, she corroborated the accusation of sexual violence and gave a harrowing tale of sexual abuse and violence (being raped by a bottle, being punched in the face,...) which people, including the jury, had a hard time to believe as there was absolutely no evidence (medical records, pictures). Had she only gone for emotional/verbal abuse, she probably would have won, but she insisted on sexual violence for which she didn't have any evidence. To make matter worse, she was caught lying on the stand (TMZ), so came off as a very unreliable witness. If she can lie in one instance, what would stop her from lying in others?

This entire post makes clear that you have zero understanding of the legal issues on the oped title.

Oh I'm perfectly clear. I'm just pointing out that Amber didn't think that the WaPo headline was inaccurate as she did spin a tale of horrific abuse to corroborate the oped's claim of sexual violence

Yeah, you don’t understand the legal issues. She had a couple of potential defenses to that defamation count, and her best strategy was to present all of them. If the first defense that her retweet was not actionable as defamation failed, a second line of defense would be to prove that the headline was accurate. Just proving emotional or verbal abuse wouldn’t have done it. But the defamation claim based on the headline meant she essentially was forced to put up every bit of evidence of sexual abuse that she could once the court refused to dismiss the count as a matter of law.

But none of this means she would have approved that headline if it had been shown to her before publication.

I'm perfectly clear on why she had to come up with stories of sexual violence to fight the defamatory accusations since her retweeting the headline might be considered defamatory. My point still stands that as soon as she mentioned instances of sexual violence, she is essentially agreeing that the WaPo headline was accurate.

You still don’t understand. There’s no point in continuing to try to explain it to you because you don’t even want to understand.

And you still refuse to see that she was sending the message that the WaPo headline was accurate when she testified about the violence she allegedly endured. But you're right. There is no point in continuing. You're stuck in your ways and I'm stuck in mine.

She did endure violence. Her "expose" was factual.